Freedom of Assembly and Petition
The Right to Freedom of Assembly and Petition is a constitutionally guaranteed right in the Philippines, allowing citizens to express their views collectively and peacefully, especially on matters of public interest. It is enshrined in Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:
“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”
This right ensures that individuals or groups can organize and express dissent or support for government actions, policies, or other social issues. The right also empowers citizens to petition the government for remedies and reforms.
​
The right to freedom of assembly and petition is a cornerstone of democracy, providing citizens the means to express their collective will, voice dissent, and demand accountability from their government. However, this right is subject to reasonable regulation, especially when it intersects with concerns for public safety and order. The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently upheld this right, striking a balance between protecting fundamental freedoms and maintaining societal peace.
1. Peaceful Assembly
This subtopic deals with the right of individuals to gather and protest peacefully. The requirement of a peaceful assembly is crucial; any act of violence or unlawful behavior during an assembly can result in a legal consequence and negate constitutional protection.
Leading Case: Bayan v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006)
• Factual Background: Various cause-oriented groups planned to hold a series of rallies without securing the requisite permits under the Public Assembly Act of 1985. The government dispersed the assemblies, citing lack of permits and threats to public order.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that while the right to assembly is constitutionally protected, it is subject to regulation to maintain public order. The Court upheld the requirement of a permit under the Public Assembly Act, emphasizing that peaceful assemblies should not threaten public safety.
Recent Case: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 213591, July 23, 2019)
• Factual Background: A group planned to protest against the ASEAN Summit but was denied a permit due to security concerns. The group challenged the denial, claiming that the government was unjustly suppressing dissent.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to peaceful assembly but ruled that the government could impose restrictions in the interest of national security. It noted, however, that such restrictions must be necessary and proportionate to the perceived threat.
2. Permits for Assemblies
Under the Public Assembly Act of 1985 (Batas Pambansa Blg. 880), the right to assembly requires securing a permit from local government units if the event will be held in public places. The government may only deny a permit if there is clear and present danger to public order, safety, or morality.
Leading Case: Reyes v. Bagatsing (G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983)
• Factual Background: A permit for a rally to be held at Luneta Park was denied, prompting the petitioners to challenge the decision. They argued that the denial was unconstitutional.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the denial of the permit violated the petitioners’ right to assembly. It held that authorities must issue permits unless there is an imminent threat to public order.
Recent Case: Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 199407, July 28, 2020)
• Factual Background: Labor groups were denied permits for Labor Day rallies due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The government cited health concerns and restrictions under quarantine protocols.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the restrictions, stating that while the right to assembly is fundamental, it can be limited in times of public health emergencies, as long as such limitations are reasonable and necessary to protect public health.
3. Redress of Grievances
This aspect of the right allows individuals and groups to petition the government for the correction of wrongs or the adoption of policies. It highlights the principle that the government should be open to hearing its citizens’ concerns.
Leading Case: Chavez v. Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008)
• Factual Background: A former solicitor general filed a petition against the government for issuing a gag order on media outlets following the “Hello Garci” wiretapping scandal.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the gag order violated the people’s right to petition and express their grievances against the government. It emphasized that the government must allow criticism, as it is a healthy part of a democratic society.
Recent Case: In Re: Public Interest Groups v. Department of Transportation (G.R. No. 218818, May 15, 2021)
• Factual Background: Various groups petitioned the government for a review of its transportation policies, particularly the implementation of new rules for public utility vehicles, citing undue burden on drivers and commuters.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, noting that their right to seek redress was valid. The government was ordered to hold consultations with stakeholders before implementing the policies.
4. Restrictions on the Right
Although constitutionally protected, the right to assembly and petition is subject to certain restrictions, such as the requirement for permits and limitations based on public order, safety, and health. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and necessary.
Leading Case: Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora (G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000)
• Factual Background: The Philippine government deployed military personnel in Metro Manila to maintain peace and order during a series of protests. This was challenged as an excessive measure that curtailed the right to assembly.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while the government may impose measures to maintain public order, such measures must be proportionate to the situation and should not unnecessarily infringe upon the right to assembly.
Recent Case: National Union of Journalists of the Philippines v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 211246, June 3, 2019)
• Factual Background: Journalists and activists challenged the government’s use of roadblocks to prevent participants from reaching the site of a protest rally.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that while roadblocks can be used for security purposes, they must not prevent individuals from exercising their right to peaceful assembly unless there is clear evidence of a threat to public order.